A good reason not to believe in God

[theVOID]

For fucks sake fr0d0.

I did not ask for proof of the existence of god, I asked why you feel justified in believing in him, as in believing that he exists, which apparently you don't actually care about.

I believe in a great many things for which I have no proof, such as my belief that other planets in the universe harbour life, but I do have justification for this belief, that being a statistical inference taking into account the prior probability of abiogenesis being true, the estimated number of planets in the universe, the estimated number of those that would have conditions suitable for life and the probability of abiogenesis happening given these conditions exist.

Anyone who cares about being consistent in how they arrive at their beliefs MUST have an epistemology, some theory for at what point in in examining a hypothesis we are justified in believing that it is true. Once we have this epistemology that fits our beliefs we have the opportunity of testing these epistemologies to see if they are sound, self consistent, in line with the best neurological data on belief formation and don't permit contradictory beliefs on the same standard of evidence.

Then again, you seem like you hardly give a shit whether or not your beliefs are true, so I hardly expect you to do the work necessary to find out.

[KichigaiNeko]

Seems like the Xtian way V0ID...but hey they'll go down believing!!

[fr0d0]

I did not ask for proof of the existence of god, I asked why you feel justified in believing in him, as in believing that he exists, which apparently you don't actually care about.

Yet your question centred around existence primarily (as I read it). I've explained to you how I feel justified, because I have worked out the finer detail to a point where it is the only logical conclusion.

I believe in a great many things for which I have no proof, such as my belief that other planets in the universe harbour life, but I do have justification for this belief, that being a statistical inference taking into account the prior probability of abiogenesis being true, the estimated number of planets in the universe, the estimated number of those that would have conditions suitable for life and the probability of abiogenesis happening given these conditions exist.

I find that insufficient justification. I hope that helps you place my position.

Then again, you seem like you hardly give a shit whether or not your beliefs are true, so I hardly expect you to do the work necessary to find out.

Well that's completely contrary to all of our discussions so far and something I would assume you know to be false.

[Edwardo Piet]

It doesn't differ at all DvC. (Did you read the second link?)

What second link?

If it doesn't differ you are still contradicting yourself.

[fr0d0]

FFS

see from page 4 "The Logical Possibility of the Incarnation" : http://www.scribd.com/doc/45978722/One-P...atic-Union

I've summarised it for you:

A person is an individual substance with a structured set of mental properties,faculties (a natural grouping of capacities),and higher order capacities, unified by internal relations.

A nature is a property that includes all properties essential to an individual being a member of a kind, which are necessarily co-instantiated in an substance of that kind.

1.

Jesus voluntarily elects to limit the exercise of his personhood through his human nature, gaining information about theworld through the perceptual faculties of his human body, learning and storing memories through the instrumentality of his human brain, living a perfect human life by his perfect obedience and complete dependence on the Holy Spirit.
DeWeese, p. 13.

it is equality with God, not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied himself. While he did not cease to be in nature what the Father was, he becamefunctionally subordinated to the Fatherfor the period of the incarnation… Bytaking on human nature, he accepted certain limitations upon the functioning of his divine attributes.
Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, p. 751.

Erickson summarizes this line of thoughtby asking, “May not the incarnation be a matter of divine self-limitation, freely chosenand appropriate to deity?"

2.

…none of us is humanity as God intended it to be or as it came from his hand. Humanity was spoiled and corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Consequently, we are not true human beings, but impaired, broken-down vestiges of essential humanity.

We sometimes approach the incarnationthe wrong way. We define deity andhumanity abstractly and then say, ‘Theycould not possibly fit together.’… If,however, we begin with the reality of theincarnation in Jesus Christ, we not onlysee better what the two natures are like,but recognize that whatever they are, theyare not incompatible, for they once didcoexist in one person. And what is actualis of course possible.

[Edwardo Piet]

So Jesus is like a watered down version of God, in human form.

So he's not fully man and fully God - as you claimed earlier - as that's logically impossible since you say there's no difference between that and him being fully mortal and immortal (which is logically impossible).

Right.

Oh and fr0d0, in response to my statement -

That's it, it's fine if he's a proportion man and a proportion God. But as fr0d0 is still saying fully man and fully God, it still doesn't make sense yet (unless he's sometimes fully God and other times fully man).

- a simple "You're right." would have sufficed.

[Captain Scarlet]

I could never be a xtian. I am either too dumb to get this, or too indifferent to the woolyness of it to care.

The desparation of an intellectual clique of theologians and philospohers to project divinty onto a figure from the iron age and prove that it is logically posible, or even likely is amazing. I have no idea how the above begins to address the central problem of a man-god being a contradiction, it seems utter twaddle to me and a hermetically sealed debate between nodding and fawning believers looking at each other in an approving way. In everything I have read there is never a striaght out answer just lots of verbal hand-wringing. I have given up caring.

From all we can fathom out at this historical distance, Jesus (assuming he existed) was a man, a jewish man who was very serious about Judaism and wanted to be the Jewish (earthly) saviour. He carefully stage-managed some events to make it look like he was fulfilling prophecies. He then was brutally murdered for sedition (whether he sought this for matyrdom we don't know), but he never came back. He never was nor claimed to be a god. In so far as we can tell it is also extremely implausible that he ever was becuase no argument can be succesfully made and appealed to, either deductively or inductively. The end.

[fr0d0]

So Jesus is like a watered down version of God, in human form.

So he's not fully man and fully God - as you claimed earlier - as that's logically impossible since you say there's no difference between that and him being fully mortal and immortal (which is logically impossible).

No DvC... those are supposedly sound philosophical arguments to defend the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully man/ mortal and immortal. Did you read them?

[reverendjeremiah]

Christianity is perfect, Christians are not - C. S. Lewis

Christianity is perfect?



To listen to fr0d0 tell it, you would think it wasnt